Why have all the women integration programs failed so hard?

>is still biased against women.

wew big claims there my man, lets see how you explain yourself.

> Which is fucking bullshit

You are right about the point you are making but it is not bullshit. Someone who has been working constantly will know more than someone who worked for a while and then took a break.

Get a friend and both learn to play the piano. After you are both relatively good just stop playing but have your friend continue doing so. Then after 1 year have a piano competition and see how he beats you by a huge fucking margin.

>has proven time and again that they're capable of keeping up
Again, you are correct, but if everyone looking for the job is capable of doing it then why not try to look for the best one. After all, people hiring are a business first and foremost. A new employee is an investment and if they are all going to take the same pay then just pick the one that is the best and to do this you will have to pay close attention to detail and working constantly is one of the details that will make the difference.

It seems that you are just assuming that women have to take long leaves. Sexist much? This is the 21st century you fucking sexist, women can choose not to be housewives and not have children so that they can be competitive, shitlord.

> it's the childbearing woman
Indeed but welcome to human biology. All the woman has to do is say 'lets not have children' and then let it be. Do not have children and flourish in your career. It is literally that easy.

Boy oh boy, looks like the one biased against women here is you. Stop pretending you know how all women will act because you don't. Literally the solution to all your made up problems are

>DO NOT HAVE KIDS

>b-but I want to have kids
Then you never wanted a career in the first place.

I double majored in physics and gender studies and I totally understand why women don't want to be in this environment :^) I'll give you a hint: STEM guys are rude and condescending (see: this entire thread) and looooove to let you know how much they know and "help" with work, like please stop dude, I'm in the honors program and get straight A's and am smarter than you, if I need help I'll ask but don't just barge into my personal space and assume you know better than me (you don't). They make gross dick jokes all the time in the study lounge and it always smells like shit in there. One time a guy got in my face trying to flirt with me and his breath smelled so bad I nearly gagged.

Nice bait.

Try me punk, every word there is true.

I know you are bait but you are making a pretend-point that actual feminists use in the real world and I'd like to answer to it.

>STEM guys are rude and condescending
If the people around you distract you from your education then you never cared about your education enough to succeed.

When I was first getting into college there were so many shitty mistakes university people made and so many shitty weird people trying to fuck me over for some reason and yet I didn't stop, even though it sucked.

almost every single thing you mentioned that are biased toward women are biased toward men who raise their kids too.
so maybe it's not a structure bias toward a specific gender then?
troll BTFO

...

>If the people around you distract you from your education then you never cared about your education enough to succeed.

Uh but I'm incredibly successful in spite of the shitty hostile environment? It shouldn't be my job to grit my teeth and passively deal with people being jackasses all the time because guess what, it is distracting and it does take effort to deal with it. Have you ever been leered at and had someone you don't know and totally aren't attracted to you walk up to you and make not-very-subtle-at-all insinuations they want to fuck you? And they're like twice your size and loud and won't leave you alone? It's *actually* a little harrowing and I have to deal with it because people like that throw tantrums and cause scenes if I try to just ignore them and filter them out.

It's like major life choices have major consequences...imagine that.

>I'm incredibly successful in spite of the shitty hostile environment?

Then you are literally complaining about nothing. If the 'disgusting men' around you did not interfere with your success then what is the point of complaining about them?

They literally did nothing to you.

>Have you ever been leered at and had someone you don't know and totally aren't attracted to you walk up to you and make not-very-subtle-at-all insinuations they want to fuck you?

No because I don't have female privilege topkek. This is feminism in 2016.

>look all these people who want to sexually please me, poor me.

> I try to just ignore them and filter them out.

Wrong, literally just tell them 'no'. Let me tell you a little secret that is a bit too true.

Every positive signal you give to a man is interpreted by him as 'I want your cock up my anus. No condom, just ravage me, fucking destroy my ass.'

When you smile to a man he thinks you want to suck his dick.

When you help a man he thinks you want to take it up the ass from him.

When you talk to a man he thinks you want to spread those legs and have him break that pussy.

That is general for a men, now there are different types of men divided by how the choose to react from these interpretations. When a girl gives me these signs I immediately try to have sex with her. I start by 'softly poking her', talking her back when she's not talking to me to see if she responds positively.

If she responds positively then I start messaging her and being closer.

If she responds positively then I go for it and ask her out or tell her 'lets be fuckbuddies'.

I don't get angry if I'm ever rejected in any of the steps but believe me, if a woman 'leads me on' to the second stage then I will no longer respect her or treat her as equal, she is just another bitch looking for cheap attention.

What is my final advice for you? Shut men down at the first stage so that they don't resent you for it. That will solve all your problems, slut.

I love how you women are supposedly so much more empathetic than men but completely miss how environments like that are hostile to everyone involved. If anything women are sheltered from some of the worst nastiness.

Protip: just because people's problems are different from yours, doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Stop falling for this bait dude. You are discussing against a fat neckbeard role playing.

I suspect that but the troll is still making mainstram feminist points and I just want to refute them for the actual cucks and women that happen to stumble upon this thread.

>Every positive signal you give to a man is interpreted by him as 'I want your cock up my anus. No condom, just ravage me, fucking destroy my ass.'

That's called rape culture, dipshit. I shouldn't have to be on vaginal defense duty because some creep like you thinks courtesy and kindness means I want to suck your dick on the spot. You don't even want to please me, you just want to masturbate with my body as your sex toy. People like you honestly disgust me. Get it through your thick fucking skull that women are people and aren't betrothed to the existence of your dick.

Okay, user, tell me here: what about STEM environments is hostile for you? Any harassment stories? Care to explain how my presence in the room is affecting you negatively? Because honestly, I can't think of any downsides to being a guy in these rooms. Enlighten me here.

>rape culture
Rape is natural. Women were born to be raped.

Ah troll it is then

>That's called rape culture, dipshit.

No it isn't. If a man tries to 'poke you' first to see if you respond positively then he is actively looking for your consent, which is the opposite of rape.

>courtesy and kindness means I want to suck your dick on the spot

The reason we think this is that the only reason men are kind to women is so that they can fuck them. Therefore, the only reason a woman would be kind to men is if she wants to fuck them.

I mean, I will say this outright, if you are an attractive women then I only see you as a walking pair of tits.

If you are an average or below average woman then I respect you as my equal and hopefully we can get along. But if you are hot then all I want from you is sex. And if I don't get to fuck you then I will respectfully pull back, but I won't respect you or even consider you as a real person in the real world.

> you just want to masturbate with my body as your sex toy.

That's a weird way of describing sex but yeah.

>People like you honestly disgust me.

You know that I am roughly the average man. You just said you hate all men.

Men have dicks and we like to get it wet, get over it. Literally human biology.

>women are people

Women are people but I can choose which people I respect and not respect. As I said, I respect average and unattractive women but I choose not to respect attractive women.

Nothing sexist about that. If anything it is hot-ist.

What about the fact that lots of girls are actually normal, playful, not insecure and doesn't hate sex like you do ? Flirting isn't raping and you don't speak for women, you only speak for the social reject fat ugly stinking self-entitled boring zombified paranoid cancerbags who should be stuck in an asylum until you die.

>almost every single thing you mentioned that are biased toward women are biased toward men who raise their kids too.
True, but the proportion of men who raise the kids is much, much lower than women who raise their kids. it's socially biased toward women, not inherently, i agree.

>Someone who has been working constantly will know more than someone who worked for a while and then took a break.
not in the sciences, and you're exaggerating the break. we're talking breaks of no more than a few months, not a full year off, and we're talking breaks of "not being physically in the lab", not "never thinking once about subject". the sciences aren't like playing a piano. critical thinking skills don't go away, and your memories of how science works don't go away. what possibly fades is immediate recall and what you potentially miss is a current knowledge of the field - but there's nothing that says either of those things has to happen. someone who stays current with new publications will retain all their scientific skill.

>It seems that you are just assuming that women have to take long leaves.
nowhere did I say that. you're the one inferring "long leaves" from what I said. the typical maternity leave for a woman is no more than a month or two, on par with what an established professor usually takes for a sabbatical. no scientific field moves fast enough that you're left behind in a month.

>someone who stays current with new publications will retain all their scientific skill.

Yeah, but someone who stays current with new publications AND is present at the lab will not only retain their skills but also improve them.

>you're the one inferring "long leaves"

If you leave the workforce for a month then that is a long leave.

>no scientific field moves fast enough that you're left behind in a month.

Maybe but if you do not leave for the monh and instead stay and do work then you now have 1 month more of professional experience than the person who left for 1 month or 2.

That is just a fact. Simply rephrase my piano analogy and replace '1 year' with '1 month' and the result is still the same.

You know the whole idea that women are entitled to some sort of emotionally sensitive handling has always struck me as being more than a bit bullshit. It comes from the same place as guys thinking about girls in terms of sex objects, but with just a different end state. I mean yeah, it is the socially decent thing to do to not express your sexual desire all over the place, but I don't get how that automatically also rolls into treating someone with respect, as a equal or whatever. It's kind of the idea that I can want to fuck you without liking you, so why after I find out that my desired utility from you won't be fulfilled, should I then be expected to befriend you¿ I never wanted that even if we did have sex, yet I'm a bad person if I refuse to give the female what she wants even if I don't get what I want.

And to be clear I'm not talking about being hostile or otherwise taking rejection badly, but something more akin to going to a car dealership, asking for a specific car, they don't have it, do then going on to the next one.

I mean where the hell do people come off thinking that they have value to me in that manner?

>The reason we think this is that the only reason men are kind to women is so that they can fuck them.

If you think women exist only to fuck you then you have a deeply unsettling outlook on life that actually perpetuates women getting sexually assaulted. Congratulations.

To you and the last guy too: you can't say you respect consent if you won't even respect my consent in interacting with you. And you know what? I like flirting. It's fun. I just choose not to engage in flirting with people like you all for reasons that you've both made abundantly clear in the ways you've talked to me and illustrated how you think about women.

>If you think women exist only to fuck you then you have a deeply unsettling outlook on life
Womdn were born to fuck and be raped. They have a pussy for a reason. You can hide yourself in pointless sophistry,but facts are facts. Women have a cunt for a reason

Nobody needs to ask permission for socially interacting you fucking retard. Who the fuck you think you are ?
> I like flirting
You definitely don't. You have some vague selfish arbitrary virtual walls keeping you from communicating with people and you expect them to raed your mind and obey to them. If you're so stuck up and think you're unique, tell them right ahead to the people you talk so nobody wastes a second with you.

And get some help. Because you clearly aren't normal.

>If you think women exist only to fuck you then you have a deeply unsettling outlook on life that actually perpetuates women getting sexually assaulted.

But you are not reading my entire point. If you are the top 20% of women who are really hot then I think you only exist to be fucked (and you do).

If you are the 80% below then you are my equal and I hope we get along.

>women getting sexually assaulted.

But I don't sexually assault women. Some men sexually assault women because their inner instincs tell them they want to have sex but the women in their lives do not respect him enough to provide it.

Now, that is the choice of the free women of our world and that is fine, but you can't pretend like the rapist was not under constant biological pressure to commit that crime.

Honestly, legalize prostitution or open sexual healing hospitals and then rape will fall to 0%. But that would be too practical and too smart for feminists so nope. Lets just demonize other people, even though they are also human beings.

Now, I am not taking the side of the rapist. I am defending a rapist because of his life's circumstances just like I would defend a poor criminal who simply robbed because he was born in the shittiest neighbourhood and never had a single opportunity in his life to become a working member of society.

Would you defend a black man who was born in a shitty neighbourhood that was turned into crime because he never had a single chance of succeeding in modern society? Or would you tell that person that he is a bad person and deserves all that he gets?

No, you SJWs probably wouldn't shit on him because he was born in bad living conditions and it was not his fault that he ended up robbing someone. If anything, it is really sad for him.

Hopefully one day we can move on to tackle these actual social problems.

>Yeah, but someone who stays current with new publications AND is present at the lab will not only retain their skills but also improve them.
Nah. In almost all fields, the daily life in the lab is drudgework. It's assays and sample handling the person has done thousands of times. the real skill is in experimental design and critical analysis, and maintenance of those skills has very little to do with the day-to-day work in the lab.

> A study by researchers at Cornell University estimated that the total cost of
absence in teamwork environments averaged 1.3 times the wages/salary of
the absent employee.1

And I'm on a phone, so instead of pasting the ugly url, search for "Health-Related Lost Productivity: The Full Cost Of Absence" to get the pdf

>Nobody needs to ask permission for socially interacting you fucking retard. Who the fuck you think you are ?

maleprivilege.csv

0/10

>durr why arent there more women in stem???

Every positive signal you give to a man is interpreted by him as 'I want your cock up my anus. No condom, just ravage me, fucking destroy my ass.'
the only reason men are kind to women is so that they can fuck them
>You know that I am roughly the average man
you only speak for the social reject fat ugly stinking self-entitled boring zombified paranoid cancerbags who should be stuck in an asylum until you die.
I don't get how that automatically also rolls into treating [a woman] with respect, as a equal or whatever.
Womdn were born to fuck and be raped
you fucking retard. Who the fuck you think you are ?
If you are the top 20% of women who are really hot then I think you only exist to be fucked (and you do).

> be a salty creep who doesn't like beautiful girls having fun with boys
> also needs to hide her jealousy
> so instead projects the butthurt towards guys who have fun with girls under the premise of some moral highground that makes no sense

pure kek :^)

> if you think women
Only truly fucked up people would think all women exist just to be fucked, but the fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you believe your value to others is what you want it to be, or even just should be. The only people who actually give a fuck if you can do science or math or whatever are those who pay you to do it or depend on your results for getting their own jobs done. You have social value if you can be entertaining to others or share interests you can discuss, but outside of that, you really don't matter at all, and this is true irrespective of gender. You have to bring some kind of value that someone else is looking for before they give a damn about you, and it has to outweigh the bullshit you bring.

I feel proud that 3 of the posts you are quoting are mine.

The first, the second and the last.

It just feels so good to know that I am really good at triggering SJWs and I don't even have to say crazy shit like 'women deserve to be raped'. All my posts are just sensible arguments for why some men act how they act.

My niggas gonna call me the 'trigger' for now on topkek. Screening this to brag about it.

Go wreck some pussy my nigga, and send the pics to this dumb loser pig. She'll be masturbating to it and hating you at the same time while tears coming down her cheeks.

This thread is literaly r9k Veeky Forums edition

Didn't know there were so many salty virgin landwhale girls in r9k as well. Really makes you think.

Well, considering the thread was made by /r9k/, that's not an unreasonable conclusion. It's not like /r9k/ will flock to actual science threads to talk about their insecurities. Only problem is that the mods still don't do jack shit about the flagrant shitposting that's plaguing this board. Are Veeky Forums mods really that much better than Veeky Forums? I honestly don't understand what went wrong with this board

do you have any proof for anything you just said ?

remember, this is a science board.

I blame the lack of women in engineering for why I am an unsuccessful human being.

Proof of shitposting? You only need check this thread and then the catalogue. If you think this thread and the content discussed within belongs to Veeky Forums (literally the politics behind women integration programs and a bunch of political accusations thrown around, mixed with virgin shitposting), then you yourself are responsible for bringing Veeky Forums to this sorry state.

You could just have said no
> women do shit in STEM so its male white privilege patriarchys fault and you're a virgin

dawww look who's salty here :^)

I think it's due to systemic misogyny.

Veeky Forums already evolved to being also about science higher education, so threads about STEM in university are and should be permitted.

There is literally nothing wrong with this thread, just that you disagree with some of the opinions being posted and that makes you mor cancerous than actual sexist.

Insulting women on the internet is nothing compared to censorship of political opponents and I will not stand for it because as you know, first they came for the socialists...

wow! xdd, you totally btfo me, I'm such a cuck feminist redditard, rite?

cancer.

>Veeky Forums already evolved to being also about science higher education
If you think career advice and breakdown of scientific degrees is the same as talking about the politics of gender "equality" or integration programs or diversity in science or whatever the hell else by lumping them all in the same category, then it's no surprise you are defending this thread.

>just that you disagree with some of the opinions being posted
sad that you think this is true. Unless you're trying to intentionally frame me as someone who can't tolerate opinions and gets triggered by them... I wonder where I've seen such tactics used before on this site...

You know which board this thread belongs to, and I'm not saying this as a derogatory piece of advice. I just wish this board kept to the objective science and math parts, rather than politics in science. If Veeky Forums can do it, then why not Veeky Forums?

true...true..I bet the patriarchy did this

lmao

Now maybe, just maybe, women have free choice, and they choose not to go into STEM fields

>I wouldn't be surprised if phase 2 was already implemented, by which I mean that they are just allowed to graduate with lower standards like it is in the military.

It was like that for my stem classes already. Nothing official, but it was obviously happening.

Because by the time they apply these programs it's too late, the mind is shaped and programmed through the childhood, playing with barbies, filled with positive feedback on aesthetics and bombarded by the media by bullshit princess stories are what counts.

How does barbies make women dislike science?
> bullshit princess stories
This must be bait

Not him, but
>How does barbies make women dislike science?
It doesn't, not directly, the point is that it shifts their childhood interests to bettering their self-image rather than performing analytical mental exercises, especially when compared to boys getting lego toys or something like that.

My point is that an environmental effect like that is the most likely explanation for the data we are getting. I mean, how would you explain parts of Europe or Asia having many more women in certain STEM fields compared to the U.S.? Environmental explanations fit the data more conveniently than just saying "all of women are like that, they just hate thinking", don't you think?

>It doesn't, not directly, the point is that it shifts their childhood interests to bettering their self-image rather than performing analytical mental exercises, especially when compared to boys getting lego toys or something like that.
A study in the UK showed that girls were more interested on this stories than baby boys. And most boys role models are just super heroes, that mostly just fight.
> My point is that an environmental effect like that is the most likely explanation for the data we are getting
Again,How does most fairy tale stories desencourage woman from this fields?
> I mean, how would you explain parts of Europe or Asia having many more women in certain STEM fields compared to the U.S.?
They simply give way more importance than we do to science,and not as much in humanities. The % is still on males favour there,so I dont know what is your point.
> all of women are like that, they just hate thinking"
No one said this. The main discussion is that women are just more interested on average in literature or art than in physics or electronics

Holyshit, why are there still people like this on Veeky Forums?
Just watch every single video of this series before continue posting please.
reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1vuho8/the_documentary_that_made_scandinavians_cut_all/

oh, fuck off with your pseudoscience bullshit
most likely explanation my ass. people like what they like, and if they don't go to the careers you want them to, well too fucking bad.

>most likely explanation my ass
nice argument

>people like what they like
You do realise the point of this thread is to find the cause behind what people like, whether it's environmental conditioning or genetics, basically the combination and ratio of these two factors.

>and if they don't go to the careers you want them to
nice assumption

>Red Pill
That's problematic to begin with, but if you seriously think anyone will watch all of this just to reply to you in a soon-to-be deleted thread, you're deluded. Either post relevant arguments or gtfo.

>Again,How does most fairy tale stories desencourage woman from this fields?
Again, not direct disencouragement, just subtle conditioning. It may or may not have an effect, but it is a possible cause. I guess this is a problem when examining social problems with so many variables.

>The % is still on males favour there
Depends on the field, but overall you're right. But how do you know that the different ratios are due to "importance given in science"? Even if it is though, societal importance to science is an environmental effect that skews the ratios compared to the U.S., so the argument still stands. Again, what I'm trying to say is that the answer isn't just one thing, but lots of factors, many of which we may not have pinpointed yet, let alone examine them critically. The reason I'm leaning towards environmental explanation as having more effect than genetics is because it provides a model that fits the variability of the data we get over the world much more than genetics, which should homogenize the stem ratios in developed countries. Or we may both be wrong, it's too early to tell because we lack genetic and neuroscientific evidence on the matter.

Running out of time here, might reply later to non-shitposters if thread is still up.

> muh patriarchy
nice meme

Actually, do watch the first one. I just got finished. It references done good studies and embarrasses the fuck out of two Norwegian gender studies professionals.

Also, I'm struck by how many English words they use.

>But how do you know that the different ratios are due to "importance given in science"? Even if it is though, societal importance to science is an environmental effect that skews the ratios compared to the U.S.
M8,economic necessity>>>preferences. In poorer countries,there are more women in STEM,but in richer ones the effect is opposite,despite having envouraging programs.
> The reason I'm leaning towards environmental explanation as having more effect than genetics is because it provides a model that fits the variability of the data we get over the world much more than genetics, which should homogenize the stem ratios in developed countries.
No it doesn't. The main reason for women studying STEM in other cultures is money. If they could study something else they would probably study literature or any other degree as it happens in the wealthiest countries.

problematics?
it was not even made by red pill. it was made in Norway, one of the most SJW country in Europe.
> oh yeah because it doesn't fit my narrative I will not watch it and tell other not to watch it because the links was in an "biased" website
nice argument SJWtard
I am completely sure what that video series debunked every single fucking arguments of your SJWs about how gender is social construct. Nope, it's mainly biological, and expecting two different types of brain achieve the same result is completely fucking deluded.

>you're deluded
nice argument

>shitposters
nice argument

>I don't want to watch your documentary.
>Post relevant arguments.
the documentary is amazing, you imbecile. watch it and then come back.
youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

>all I say is just wild speculative bullshit but it's possible cause :^)
>there's no evidence so I get to speculate!

>i'm just trying to find the cause behind what people like!
>WE NEED MORE WOMEN IN STEM HOLY SHIT FUCKING MYSOGYNISTIC PATRIARCHY

>feminism
>on Veeky Forums
kill yourself

> all this shitposting because dumb lazy women can't justify their ineptitude and lazyness to be confident enough to go STEM
become a stripper. Pays much better ;)

>You do realise the point of this thread is to find the cause behind what people like, whether it's environmental conditioning or genetics, basically the combination and ratio of these two factors.
My question to you is why does it matter what people like? I'm being serious here. Is it economics? If so then that poses two more questions: why is it everyone's problem if one group doesn't tend to care for something so long as we have someone who does, and what's stopping people from doing something they don't like/aren't interested in purely for money?

Gender is a social construct. Sex isnt.

>Gender is a social construct. Sex isnt.
The difference between sex and gender only applies when a mental illness appears.

I don't doubt that at all, it's actually surprising that people thought gender studies "professionals" were to be trusted in the first place.

>economic necessity
>PhDs in science
You do realise some PhD students in natural science get paid as much as McDonald's employees, right? You go for a PhD in science when you have a vested interest in it, not for "economic necessity". You could explain an increased number of engineers in some poorer countries, sure, but not much more than that. A country-wide experiment could be useful, but the data we need are many years away from being obtainable. It is evident though that this theory has some explanatory power. Just proves that many variables contribute to the variance of the data we get, and only complicates the problem.

>I am completely sure what that video series debunked
>I am completely sure
This says all that needs to be said about the bandwagon shitposters that "downvote" replies by posting the same memes over and over.

>nice argument
It is a nice argument though. Did you really think anyone was going to do it?

>>I don't want to watch your documentary.
This is a fast-moving imageboard lad, nobody will watch a documentary for an hours-long thread, no matter how good. Reddit would be more up your speed for that matter.

What I asked for are relevant arguments from the series, or to point us to a point of the video with an appropriate argument. You should be able to do that, if you watched it in the first place, that is.

>>there's no evidence so I get to speculate!
This is all we're doing on this matter anyway. There's some data, and we're forming hypotheses. If you hate that, then you probably don't like the scientific method either. Social problems have many more variables than natural science problems, so don't expect definitive answers. "Speculation" is all we've got.

10/10 troll. Keep going.

>You do realise some PhD students in natural science get paid as much as McDonald's employees, right? You go for a PhD in science when you have a vested interest in it, not for "economic necessity". You could explain an increased number of engineers in some poorer countries, sure, but not much more than that. A country-wide experiment could be useful, but the data we need are many years away from being obtainable. It is evident though that this theory has some explanatory power. Just proves that many variables contribute to the variance of the data we get, and only complicates the problem
M8,women in this countries dont do physics,they do CS mostly. The most oppressive countries to women in the world,have a higher % of women doing Stem. The countries that have the least number of women are the wealthier and more free ones,like Norway or the US. When the wealth and freedom increase=more women in Stem,it is not a patriarcal conspiracy,as the most patriarcal societies in the world have a higher % of women in science than in the west.

why do these retarded 'battle of the sexes' r9k/pol hybrid threads get 300 replies every time while actual, on-topic science threads 404 after getting a few troll responses?

this happens on /g/ too and it's fucking cancerous.

sage this shit you fucking virgins, nobody cares about the grudges you're holding against an entire gender because girls don't want to touch you. fucking closeted homosexuals

Because SJWtards are trying to police every thread and they are unaware that r9k and pol is also their containment board.

>The countries that have the least number of women are the wealthier and more free ones,like Norway or the US
That's a good point you're trying to make. The problem is, this difference in ratios also coincides with a vast difference in the culture of raising/educating children, role models, surrounding environment etc. Norway, affected a lot by the SJW culture in the U.S., does not in any way have the same culture as Asian countries. Who's to say that this difference is not the root cause for example? It's very difficult to distinguish between possible explanations in complex problems like these.

>why
Take a look at the shitpost responses that posts like get. Bandwagon mentality exhibited by layman responses that can only contribute to these threads that don't require any scientific knowledge exponentially increases the attention a thread gets.

>get 300 replies every time while actual, on-topic science threads 404 after getting a few troll responses?
ask the mods, I'd like to know that too.

>also coincides with a vast difference in the culture of raising/educating children
How does Norwegian culture disencourage women in CS more than Bangladesh? In Bangladesh women have way less freedom than Norwegian women do. If Bangladeshi women were rich they would probably study the same thing that Norwegian women do.

>if you hate women, you must be a virgin
Cool projection, white knight.

That's where the video came in...a survey with 200k+ respondents across 53 countries showed near identical patterns in gender preferences (systemic versus social), effectively controlling for both economic forces (the one the other user was talking about was asking students what they wanted to learn in an official capacity, not what they were interested in, and thus there's no link to marketable skills) and culture.

Here's the real deal when it comes to nature versus nurture in the majority of cases: nature is the road you're on, nurture is what lane you end up choosing.

>How does Norwegian culture disencourage women in CS more than Bangladesh?
Just like with the toy example, something doesn't have to DIRECTLY disencourage women from studying CS specifically. Little things that change their childhood could have an effect to what they do in their lives later or what they're interested in. Could be a toy, religious beliefs, or it could be their parents passing down to their female offspring the tradition of becoming a house maid instead of going to university.

I don't know about Bangladesh specifically because I'm not familiar with their culture, but the very fact that Norwegian and Bangladeshi cultures are so different entails innumerable factors that could affect something so specific like gender ratios in STEM fields. As I said, the variables are so numerous that, short of a large enough experiment, definitive answers are out of the question.

Turns out that denying reality doesn't actually change it

The fatal flaw in all of liberalism

But most of them don't really believe the things they say, they are merely personally profitting off it.

>Just like with the toy example, something doesn't have to DIRECTLY disencourage women from studying CS specifically. Little things that change their childhood could have an effect to what they do in their lives later or what they're interested in. Could be a toy, religious beliefs, or it could be their parents passing down to their female offspring the tradition of becoming a house maid instead of going to university.
Prefference is extremely related to testosterone exposure of the fetus.The more testosterone is related with fewer empathy,less interest in problem solving and more difficulty in learning languages.That is why most autist are males,women are more social and learn languague with more ease and men show way more prefference and aptitudes in science or engineering,as males recieve on average twice as much testosterone than women when they are fetuses

Read some history op, science and math were always dominated by men especially if the careers were physically intensive or required a hermit lifestyle. The increase of women in science and math came when modern large scale conflicts and war stripped families of their men and left a large chunk of the societal burdens to women.

This is why women began to get into politics.
This is why women began taking over k-12 teaching.
This is why women began taking over nursing.
This is why the average entry point for many women in science was medicine and biology.

The low numbers in every science/ math field that wasn't related to healthcare, medicine and teaching is directly correlated to these events.

It's why you have only a couple of women who won nobel prizes in physics/chemistry but every other woman got a nobel prize got it in physiology.

It's not really a matter of interest but of general opportunity. With the exception of engineering, theoretical physics and mathematics the statistics for each field will probably reach some level of equilibrium by the end of the century.